The Human Rights Blog

On March 22, 2011, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France held a Chamber hearing in the case of V.C. vs. Slovakia concerning a Roma woman who alleges she was forcibly sterilized by a Slovakian state hospital.  While Roma women have made claims of forced and coercive sterilizations by Eastern European countries for decades, this is the first case of its kind to reach Strasbourg.

Case Facts:

V.C. is a Roma woman and Slovakian national from Šarišská Poruba, Slovakia.  At the time of the sterilization, she was approximately twenty years old.  She has a sixth grade education and is unemployed.

According to her complaint, V.C. gave birth to her second child in 2000 via caesarian section at the Slovakian Ministry’s University Teaching Hospital in Presov.  While hospitalized at Presov, V.C. alleges that she was segregated because of her ethnic origin and placed in a “Gypsy room,” which was separated from the white patients.  It is also alleged that she was made to use separate bathroom facilities.

Hospital records indicate V.C. requested to be sterilized after being told by physicians that a third pregnancy would likely result in a ruptured uterus.  However, V.C. claims that the sterilization procedure was performed without her full and informed consent.  She alleges that while in the pain of the final stages of labor, doctors asked her if she wanted to have more children.  After responding in the affirmative, she was then informed that if she had another child, it would die.  V.C. states that it was at that time when she signed the consent form, without having knowledge or understanding as to the consequences of sterilization.  (See European Court of Human Right’s 2009 decision as to the admissibility of V.C.’s 2007 application)

V.C. claims that her ethnic origin played a key factor as to the way in which she was handled and the medical advice and treatment she received.  The Slovakian government denies all of the allegations, stating that V.C. was treated in the same manner as the white patients and that the medical advice provided was not based upon her ethnicity or skin color.

In 2006, V.C. filed civil complaint against the hospital staff, but ultimately the Presov Regional Court dismissed it on appeal.  The Court found that the sterilization was lawfully done, that it was a medical necessity and that V.C. had given her consent.

As indicated in the European Court of Human Rights’ Press Release issued by the Registrar of the Court on March 22, 2011, “[t]he applicant’s sterilisation has had serious medical and psychological after-effects. Notably in 2007/2008 she showed all the signs of being pregnant but was not (known as a “hysterical pregnancy”). Treated since 2008 by a psychiatrist, she continues to suffer from being sterilised. She has been ostracised by the Roma community and her current husband has left her several times due to her infertility.”

Slovakia’s History of Forced Sterilizations:

The practice of “Roma sterilization” dates back to the 1970’s when the Communist regime in Czechoslovakia regularly used forced or coercive sterilization measures to “control” the Roma population.  Roma women who participated in the procedures were given a government financial incentive as encouragement.

According to written comments submitted in 2009 to the UN’s Committee Against Torture by the Centre for Civil and Human Rights, “60% of the sterilisation operations performed from 1986 to 1987 were on Romani women, who represented only 7% of the population of the district. Another study found that in 1983, approximately 26% of sterilised women in eastern Slovakia (the region where the Applicants reside) were Romani women; by 1987, this figure had risen to 36.6%.  In 1992, a report by Human Rights Watch addressed the practice of coercive sterilisation in Czechoslovakia, noting that many Romani women were not fully aware of the irreversible nature of the intervention and was forced into it because of their poor economic situation or pressure from authorities.”  (also citing Statistical Evaluation of the Cases of Sexual Sterilisation of Romani Women in East Slovakia, 1990)

Although the Communist regime collapsed in the early 1990’s, the sterilizations continued.  Procedurally, they varied from hospital to hospital but the results were the same.  According to a 2001 Open Society Institute report, Finnish nurses noticed unusually high occurrences of sterilization and ovary removal in female Roma asylum seekers from Slovakia seeking refuge in Finland.

The “Body and Soul Report”

Perhaps the most influential and widely circulated report concerning the forced sterilization of Roma women in Slovakia came in 2003 when the Center for Reproductive Rights released Body and Soul:  Forced Sterilization and Other Assaults of Roma Reproductive Freedom.  For three months, the Center for Reproductive Rights, based in the United States, and the Centre for Civil and Human Rights, based in Slovakia, conducted interviews with more than 230 Roma women throughout eastern Slovakia.  “The interviews revealed numerous instances of coerced, forced and suspected sterilization of Romani women, along with physical and verbal abuse, racially discriminatory standards of care, misinformation in health matters, and denial of access to medical records.”  The Report culminated in a criminal investigation into the sterilization of Roma women.  However, it was eventually discontinued on the grounds that no wrongdoing had been committed.

The following 2003 documentary from Journeyman Pictures provides a comprehensive overview of the recent history of forced sterilization of Roma women in Slovakia.  Slovakian human rights attorney Barbora Bukovska, who gave comments in Strasbourg last month and who has been instrumental in bringing such cases to light, is highlighted in the film.

Access to Medical Records - K.H. and Others vs. Slovakia

Perhaps one of the most difficult hurdles Roma women faced in filing suit against state hospitals for forced sterilization was gaining access to their own medical records.  In 2002, eight Roma women in Slovakia attempted to retrieve their medical records after finding they were unable to conceive after undergoing caesarian sections.  The women wished to establish cause as to why they were unable to conceive.  After the hospitals refused to release their records, the women filed a civil suit in Slovak court.  However, their requests were denied and the Court held that the records were the property of the hospitals and not the women.

In 2004, the eight women filed suit against the hospitals with the European Court of Human Rights.  In April 2009, the Court ruled that denying the women access to their medical records was in violation of Article 6 paragraph 1 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Specifically, the Court held that access to medical records is a right to private and family life and that those persons wishes to make photocopies of their own medical records should be allowed to do so without providing reason as to their purpose or objective.  The applicable articles of the European Convention on Human Rights states:

Article 6 paragraph 1:

In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

Article 8:

1.  Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2.  There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Human rights attorney Barbora Bukovska said this in response to the ruling:

“This case indicates the complicity of the Slovak Government in the practice of forced sterilization of Romani women.  Originally, in spring of 2002, we were able to access and copy medical records of our clients. But as soon as the hospitals realized we were seeking access to medical records on forced sterilizations, they halted the access. The Slovak Government, instead of rectifying the situation, supported the hospitals in their position and over the years, denied their responsibility for the violations. All of this in order to prevent forcibly sterilized Romani women from finding truth about their sterilization surgeries and seeking compensations for them.”  (See Press Release, Centre for Civil and Human Rights, April 2009)

A.S. vs. Hungary

While V.C. vs. Slovakia is the first case of forced sterilization against Roma women to be heard by the Human Right’s Court, legal precedence nonetheless exists.  In 2004, A.S. vs. Hungary was submitted to the UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) alleging that a Hungarian Roma woman was forcibly sterilized in a Hungarian hospital while being treated after her unborn child died in the womb.  According to its findings communicated in 2006, CEDAW found that the woman signed a consent form to perform a caesarian section to remove the dead fetus, but that included within the consent form was a “barely legible” handwritten note that read:

“Having knowledge of the death of the embryo inside my womb I firmly request my sterilization.  I do not intend to give birth again; neither do I wish to become pregnant.”

After the procedure but before leaving the hospital, A.S. asked the doctor when she could try to have another baby.  “It was only then when she was informed as to the meaning of “sterilization.”’  (See CEDAW’s findings, 2006.)

Ultimately, CEDAW found that Hungary violated Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, specifically articles 10 (h), 12 and 16 paragraph 1 (e) which state:

Article 10 (h):

States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in order to ensure to them equal rights with men in the field of education and in particular to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women:

(…)

(h) Access to specific educational information to help to ensure the health and well being of families, including information and advice on family planning.

Article 12:

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health- care services, including those related to family planning.

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article, States Parties shall ensure to women appropriate services in connexion with pregnancy, confinement and the post-natal period, granting free services where necessary, as well as adequate nutrition during pregnancy and lactation.

Article 16, paragraph 1 (e):

States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations and in particular shall ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women:

(…)

(e) The same rights to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights.

United States’ response:

In regards to forced and coercive sterilization, Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, United States Congressman Christopher Smith (R-NJ) stated, “as a matter of justice for the victims and truth about the past due to all the people of Slovakia this practice should be condemned as a grave human rights violation.”

The European Court of Human Rights is not expected to rule in the matter of V.C. vs. Slovakia for several weeks.  After their decision, either side may appeal the seven-judge ruling to the Court’s Grand Chamber.

For more information, please read the following article on NPR:  Court Hears Claim of Forced Roma Sterilization, Associated Press.

Popularity: 7% [?]

March 8, 2011 marks the 100^th anniversary of International Women’s Day, formerly known as International Working Women’s Day, when countries and organizations throughout the world commemorate the role of women in society.  On this, the centurial year, women and girls across the world, regardless of age, nationality, race, religion or any other status, can consider the strides women have made for equality, justice, safety, public health and political freedom.  International Women’s Day is also an opportunity to give a voice to all women, even those who live in regions of the world that are sometimes forgotten.

This year and for the first time, Women Deliver, an international advocacy organization dedicated to the prevention and elimination of maternal deaths, announced the “Women Deliver 100,” a list of the planet’s most inspiring people who have “delivered” to women and girls.

Among the 100 honorees are:

Iranian human rights lawyer, Shirin Ebadi, a former judge who was ousted from her position after the Islamic Revolution.  In 2003, she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her humanitarian efforts.  She continues to fight for democracy, the human rights of women and children, and the release of Iran’s political prisoners.

Betty Bigombe of Uganda, former Parliamentarian and peace negotiator who led mediations with the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in 2005-2006.  In her current role as Senior Fellow at the US Institute of Peace, she conducts research on the impact armed conflict has on women and children and is the founder of the Arcadia Foundation, which works to curb government corruption.

American Pulitzer Prize-winning photojournalist, Lynsey Addario captures moving, sometimes disturbing, images of women and children in conflict zones such as Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Afghanistan as well as the role of women in society.  Ms. Addario’s work can be viewed here.

As we reflect upon the advances women have made, not only globally but in our local communities as well, it is important to remember the challenges women continue to face.  As a follow up to this blog post, I would like to note that in the next month or so, I will interview one of the Women Deliver 100 honorees.  In the meantime, I encourage you to peruse Women Deliver’s complete list of inspiring and interesting human rights and women’s rights figures, which can be found here.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Yesterday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights heard closing arguments in the case of Leopoldo López v. the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, which involves hundreds of Venezuelan politicians who were disqualified or otherwise blocked from exercising their political rights.  Among the disqualified politicians is Leopoldo López, the popular, charismatic, and Harvard-educated leader of Venezuela’s grassroots opposition party, Voluntad Popular. Venezuela’s Comptroller General barred him from holding public office first for three years and later for six, without formally charging him or trying him in a court of law.  Specifically, López was prohibited from running for office in Venezuela’s November 2008 elections, where he was favored to become Metropolitan Mayor of the city of Caracas, the most important political position in Venezuela second to the President.  Incidentally, López was expected to defeat a member of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s party, the United Socialist Party.  Many, including López, believe that Venezuela’s government is utilizing these disqualifications to protect Hugo Chavez’s political power, as López could be a direct threat to Chavez’s presidency in the upcoming 2012 presidential elections.  In fact, at a December 2008 rally, Chavez himself said, “those who betray Chavez will die politically.”

Before his disqualification, López served as Mayor of Chacao. While in office, he held a public approval rating of over ninety percent. In 2008, the World Mayor Project named him one of the top three mayors in the world.  Despite his overwhelming popularity, he has suffered beatings, kidnappings and multiple assassination attempts by those seeking to squash chances of Chavez’s ouster.

López, along with other banned politicians, brought their case before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, based in San Jose, Costa Rica after the Constitutional Court of the Venezuelan Supreme Court refused to hear his case, citing a lack of jurisdiction.

Disqualification of politicians without a criminal trial violates international law:

The disqualification of some 575 Venezuela politicians is in direct derogation of Article 23 of the American Convention, which states,

“1. Every citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities:

a. to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;

b. to vote and to be elected in genuine periodic elections, which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and by secret ballot that guarantees the free expression of the will of the voters; and

c. to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his country.”

2. The law may regulate the exercise of the rights and opportunities referred to in the preceding paragraph only on the basis of age, nationality, residence, language, education, civil and mental capacity, or sentencing by a competent court in criminal proceedings. (See American Convention on Human Rights)

Additionally, these actions violate articles 42 and 65 of the Venezuelan Constitution, which states that political disqualification can only occur by a final decision, i.e. conviction of a crime.  Specifically, article 42 states,

“Anyone who loses or renounces to nationality loses citizenship. The exercise of citizenship or any political rights can be suspended only by final judicial decision in the cases provided by law.”

Article 65 reads,

“[p]ersons who have been convicted of crimes committed while holding office or other offenses against public property, shall be ineligible to run for any office filled by popular vote, for such period as may be prescribed by law after serving their sentences, depending on the seriousness of the offense.”

The ban of these politicians is scheduled to expire in 2017 while Chavez’s government investigates the politicians on “corruption charges.”  In the meantime, the world will be waiting for the Inter-American Court’s final ruling, which is expected to come in late May or June 2011.  And, although Venezuela is bound to the Court’s final ruling, the country’s Court Representative, German Saltron, indicated that Venezuela may, nonetheless, choose to ignore the ruling, stating that acquiescence would only come if Venezuela’s own Supreme Court decides that the ruling is constitutional.  (See M. Jimenez, “Venezuela says it may ignore international court’s decision on blacklisted politicians,” The Canadian Press, Mar. 2, 2011.)

For More Information, please read:

Case Summary of Leopoldo López vs. State of Venezuela

Venezuelan Democracy Gets Its Day In Court by Leopoldo López, The Huffington Post, March 1, 2011.

PETITION 275-2008, July 25, 2008, Admissibility of Leopoldo López  Mendoza, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Organization of American States

Popularity: 3% [?]

As Christians in the West have either already enjoyed Christmas festivities on December 25th, or are gearing up to do so on January 7th, Christmas celebrations for Christians in the Middle East, particularly those in the countries of Iraq and Egypt, have been marred by recent waves of deadly sectarian violence, which has targeted some of the world’s oldest Christian groups.

Many of us can remember the Christmas Eve Massacre in Nag Hammadi, Egypt last year, when six young men were gunned down and killed in the street outside of their church as they left Christmas Eve services on January 6, 2010.  Since then, uprising and violence against Coptic Christians in Egypt has escalated, culminating in a bloody New Year’s Eve massacre in Alexandria following a Coptic Orthodox church service where 21 people were murdered and over 100 more injured.  This recent incident, coupled by threats against Christian groups worldwide, has caused churches around the globe to suspend or abbreviate their upcoming Christmas celebrations.

Still, the Copts are not the only Christian group in The Middle East who have fallen victim to repeat, deadly sectarian violence.  This fall, al-Qaeda declared war against Iraq’s Christian population, which has since been riddled with a near constant stream of threats and violence.  These growing threats have caused Iraq’s Christians to leave the country in droves, fearing for their lives.

Between one million and 1.4 million Christians lived in Iraq in 2003.  Since then, over half of Iraq’s Christians have been driven out of the country.  Today, between 400,000 and 600,000 Iraqi Christians remain.  Likewise in Egypt, Coptic Christians, who comprise ten percent of Egypt’s total population, have fallen victim in increased marginalization, discrimination and incidents of violence.  According to The Assyrian International News Agency, “[t]he number of violations against the Copts for the year 2010 are not yet published, but, from January 2008 to January 2010, there were at least 52 incidents of sectarian violence or tension-about two incidents a month-which took place in 17 of Egypt’s 29 governorates.”

In order to illustrate the breadth and scope of violence against the Coptic and Iraqi Christians over the past several months, I created a timeline of incidents of violence and discrimination against Christians in Iraq and Egypt.  Not only is this timeline meant to compile all of the reported incidences of violence against these groups, but also show how these atrocities are beginning to affect Christians around the world.

Timeline of Violence:

October 31, 2010

Baghdad:  Nearly 60 Iraqi Christians are killed and over 100 are injured by bullets and bomb blasts after Our Lady of Salvation Catholic Church is attacked by armed gunmen strapped with bombs.  Al-Qaeda claims responsibility for the massacre and declares that they are waging war upon Christian minorities.  See Bloomberg Report. President Obama calls the attack “barbaric and heinous” while Pope Benedict XVI calls it a “vile gesture.”  See The New York Times

As a result of the bombing, over 10,000 of Iraq’s Christians flee the city in fear and move to the northern Kurdish provinces or abroad. According to the United Nations, 1,000 Christian families left Iraq.  See The Washington Times

November 10, 2010

Baghdad:  Coordinated bomb attacks on Christian homes, including the homes of those Christians who survived the October massacre, kill three Iraqi Christians and injure 26 others.  A group affiliated with al-Qaeda claims responsibility.  The Christian Science Monitor

November 18, 2010:

Washington, D.C.:  United States Congressman Chris Smith (R-N.J.) introduces a resolution on the floor of the House to denounce the Baghdad Christian Massacre and calls on Washington to assist Baghdad in helping find new homes for those Iraqis wishing to flee the sectarian violence.  See The Hill

November 24, 2010:

Cairo:  Two Coptic Christians are killed and 152 arrested as Christian demonstrators protest the Egyptian government’s refusal to allow a community center to be turned into a church in Cairo’s suburb of Omraniya.  (Egyptian law prohibits Christian churches from being built in Egypt without express governmental permission.)  See The Wall Street Journal

December 22, 2010:

Egypt:  Egyptian universities announce that they will hold final exams during the Coptic Orthodox Christmas period despite requests from Egypt’s Coptic Church to postpone the examinations until after Coptic Christmas celebrations.  See Al-Masry Al-Youm, Egypt

December 23, 2010:

Iraq:  A council of Iraqi Christian churches advises followers to cancel public Christmas celebrations for fear of violence amidst threats by al-Qaeda insurgents. Churches in the cities of Baghdad, Kirkuk, Mosul, and Basra, take down Christmas decorations, cancel Christmas Eve Mass, and advise Christian laity to refrain from decorating their homes.  In Kirkuk, an appearance by Santa Clause is cancelled. See The Boston Globe

December 30, 2010

Alexandria:  After a New Year’s Eve service, a bomb explodes in front of Al-Qiddissin “Saints” Coptic Orthodox Church killing 21 worshipers and injuring over 100 others.  According to The Los Angeles Times, “the bomb designed to inflict maximum civilian casualties, bore the hallmark of Al Qaeda militants.”  See Newsweek

Baghdad:  Two Christians are killed and 16 wounded after coordinated bombs are detonated at six separate Christian targets within a one-hour period throughout Baghdad in front of Christian homes.  Among those dead are Fawzi Ibrahim, 80, and his 75-year-old wife, Jeanette, who opened the front door of their home only to find a piece of luggage with a bomb hidden inside. See Los Angeles Times

January 3, 2011

Baghdad:  Christian woman Rafa Toma is shot dead in her bed while asleep in her home.  See AOL News

Europe:  Radical Islamist website affiliated with al-Qaeda posts a “hit list,” which details Coptic Orthodox Christian Churches throughout Europe, including in France, England, The Netherlands, and Germany, that are to be bombed during Julian Christmas Eve services.  Coptic services throughout Europe will be shortened due to security threats.  See CNN

January 4, 2011

Sydney, Australia:  Coptic Orthodox Christian Christmas services due to take place on January 7 are cancelled after threats against Coptic Churches in Australia.  According to Bishop Suriel, Melbourne Bishop of the Coptic Orthodox Church, “[t]he whole Coptic community all around the world is just in total shock and dismay and never ever expected anything like this to happen in Egypt….The images that are coming out of Alexandria are just unbearable to see… It’s overwhelming for us right now.”  ABC News 24 Australia

Montreal, Canada:  Coptic Orthodox clergy plan to hold Christmas Eve and Christmas Day services under tightened security but cancel all other Christmas-related events.  See The Montreal Gazette

Is the violence against Christians in Iraq and Egypt tantamount to genocide?

Earlier this week, former Lebanese President Amin Gemayel boldly labeled the violence against Iraqi and Coptic Christians as genocide stating that,“[m]assacres are taking place for no reason and without any justification against Christians. It is only because they are Christians.”  While I would not go so far at this point to use the word “genocide” to describe the targeted violence against Christians in Iraq and Egypt, former President Gemayel’s assertion is certainly reasonable given the context and definitely worth at least a short analysis.

Genocide is a very specific and complex term, referring to “an extreme and inhumane form of persecution.”  (See Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreskic et al.) The United Nations defines genocide as, “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:  killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”  (Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2)  However, the legal significance of the term goes even deeper than the UN’s definition, as to be found guilty of genocide, the persecutor’s general and specific intent must be carefully scrutinized. For example, the term, “intent to destroy” means that the perpetrator of genocide must recognize that his actions target a protected group and also, that his intent must be to destroy more than he alone is physically able to do, thus placing the killing into a genocidal context. (See ‘What does ‘intent to destroy’ in genocide mean?‘ Kai Ambos, International Review of the Red Cross, Volume 91 Number 876 December 2009)

Due to the complexity of the term coupled with our inability, at present, to fully know or understand the mindset of the perpetrators involved, it appears premature to determine whether or not these obviously sectarian acts of violence against Iraqi and Coptic Christians are tantamount to genocide.   That said, one thing does appear certain to me:  If this targeted violence against Christians in The Middle East, particularly in Iraq and Egypt, continues to escalate and if the numbers of Christians living in these regions continues to decrease as a result, it would point strongly to the beginnings of a possible, future genocidal campaign.

That said, The Human Rights Blog strongly and vociferously condemns the growing, recent attacks against Coptic and Iraqi Christians and sends deep condolences to those who lost loved ones as a result of the violence.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Despite the Obama Administration’s failings and poor decisions in issues of and related to human rights this past year, much success has been made by the Obama Team in the advancement of the rights of indigenous individuals.  After a stream of initiatives aimed at promoting American Indian communities as well as the President’s December 8th signing of the Cobell v. Salazar settlement into law, President Obama himself delivered an encouraging announcement during the White House Tribal Nations Conference on December 16^th; that the United States now endorses the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), a measure that was previously rejected by the United States since its adoption in 2007.

Over 2 million American Indians from more than 560 tribes live in the United States.  While the plight of American Indians throughout the course of US history is by now universally known, the fact remains that these groups continue to suffer from disease, crime, poverty, domestic violence and substance abuse at rates much higher than the rest of the US population.  For example, according to think-tank Share the World’s Resources, a Native American in the United States is 600 times more likely to contract tuberculosis than the general population and 62% more likely to commit suicide than the general population.” (The State of the World’s Indigenous People, Jan. 15, 2010)  In fact, during his announcement, President Obama stated, “[w]e know that Native Americans die of illnesses like diabetes, pneumonia, flu — even tuberculosis — at far higher rates than the rest of the population.  Closing these gaps is not just a question of policy, it’s a question of our values.”

The plight of America’s Indians is certainly not unique, however, as indigenous people in countries throughout the world continue to suffer similar hardships; both from years of governmental abuse and systematic discrimination, as well as due to changes in our environment, such as rising ocean waters, drought, floods, and changing ecosystems.  For example, the Inuit people of the Arctic regions of Russia, Greenland, Canada and the US view climate change as an enormous impediment to their cultural survival, causing them to lose homes, access to work, and the ability to partake in traditional activities like hunting, which is closely linked to their unique cultural identity. (See Rethinking climate change from a human rights perspective, The Human Rights Blog, Nov. 16, 2009)

History of UNDRIP

Among the many human rights covenants and declarations to which the United States is not a part is the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) a non-binding text adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 13, 2007, which recognizes that indigenous people are equal to all other people and asserts their right to practice their customs and traditions freely.  Although UNDRIP, unlike a treaty, is not legally binding and thus does not carry the weight of international law, UNDRIP is nonetheless important because it provides guidelines for the fair treatment of indigenous peoples and prohibits discrimination against them.  The Declaration also expresses the hopes of indigenous groups and the strides they wish to achieve in the countries in which they live.  Most importantly, and perhaps most controversial in terms of the United States’ previous rejection of the UNDRIP is that the Declaration allows indigenous groups the right to remain distinct from the government in which they live; allowing them to pursue their own economic endeavors and social development.

When UNDRIP was adopted in 2007, 143 countries accepted the measure while four countries rejected it and eleven abstained.  Those that rejected the Declaration were Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States.  However, President Obama’s recent endorsement of UNDRIP signals a change of US policy towards American Indians; that the Obama Administration recognizes that it is the tribal nations and not the federal government that best knows how to develop and manage their own tribal institutions.  Specifically, in his remarks during the opening of the 2009 Tribal Nations Conference and Interactive Discussion, President Obama said, “Washington can’t – and shouldn’t – dictate a policy agenda for Indian Country.  Tribal nations do better when they make their own decisions.”  (As a political aside, wouldn’t it be interesting if Obama shared these same sentiments in regards to states’ rights?)

In any case, though today’s announcement is an obvious positive step towards the advancement of American Indians and indigenous people throughout the world, the fact remains that this is still just an endorsement on the part of the Obama administration and not a formal acceptance of UNDRIP.  And, although we will all just have to wait and see if the Obama Administration ultimately follows through by formally adopting UNDRIP in 2011, I remain optimistic, as President Obama clearly stated that, “what matters far more than words, what matters far more than any resolutions or any declaration, are actions to match those words.”

Popularity: 3% [?]